There is a huge percentage of disaffected voters on both sides of the aisle. This situation is Epic and Johnson/Weld could be really disruptive but they have to get on the national radar screen (debates) and they have to get organized. The Libertarian's couldn't organize a bar fight.
With that said, I'm 100% confident that Johnson/Weld in the White House would be 100% better than either Clinton or Trump. The idea of a Dem/Rep Congress working with a Libertarian President has the potential to realign the stars and force Congress to represent their constituency and not their Party.
With that said, I'm 100% confident that Johnson/Weld in the White House would be 100% better than either Clinton or Trump. The idea of a Dem/Rep Congress working with a Libertarian President has the potential to realign the stars and force Congress to represent their constituency and not their Party.
19
NO. Sensible people will not be wasting their votes on someone who can't even qualify for most primaries. Not enough money, not enough votes, not enough interest, and wrong headed positions on most things, to boot.
19
Your ignorance is showing. Libertarians wouldn't be in the Democrat or Republican party primaries because, well, they are a different political party.
16
Third party candidates need to get started early - well before the election - and build up a follow. As it is, they just take away votes, ironically from the party closer to them. Remember when Nader threw the election to Bush? Very selfish.
19
What about Jill Stein? In "safe" states (non-swing states), she's the obvious choice for Bernie supporters who want to both stop Trump AND advance Bernie's progressive agenda. It's NOT a "dangerous" vote in these non-swing states. And it's also not a "wasted" vote or just a "protest" vote for this reason: If the Green Party gets at least 5% of the vote, they'll qualify for partial federal funding in the next election which will dramatically increase their influence over the whole process. If you're a Bernie supporter in a non-swing state, it's essential to vote for Jill Stein.
16
I believe that, in light of the fact that only nine percent of Americans voted for the two main party nominees, it is more than fitting for Johnson to be included in the debates. If our nation was ever ripe for a third party president, now is that time.
10
Also Add Jill Stein to the debate while you are at it!
6
We need him on the debates. We know he will not win. And his ideals are what most of the people want, the problem is that they do not know it.
They are economically conservative as republicans and socially liberal as democrats. So no or the other, a mix of both.
These guys are truly much better than Hillary or Trump. Open your eyes!!
They are economically conservative as republicans and socially liberal as democrats. So no or the other, a mix of both.
These guys are truly much better than Hillary or Trump. Open your eyes!!
12
Libertarians do not have "ideals," only self-interest.
35
In a weird election year; certainly.
He is polling way positive over Clinton and Trump.
He is more in the middle, as is his VP.
He is on the ballot in most, if not all the states.
He's polling high in Utah. HE also is polling reasonably well in New Mexico.
With a close Electoral Vote fro Clinton and Trump; all Johnson has to do is win two or three states; then election goes to Congress. And, chances are very good he would be chosen as the compromise candidate.
Finally, much of his policies will attract those in the middle.
He is polling way positive over Clinton and Trump.
He is more in the middle, as is his VP.
He is on the ballot in most, if not all the states.
He's polling high in Utah. HE also is polling reasonably well in New Mexico.
With a close Electoral Vote fro Clinton and Trump; all Johnson has to do is win two or three states; then election goes to Congress. And, chances are very good he would be chosen as the compromise candidate.
Finally, much of his policies will attract those in the middle.
10
No, Nick. If it goes to the House, where each state has one vote (regardless of size), we get Trump.
7
Read the Johnson web site. The GOP will not vote Trump.
Realists; you are not being one.
There is no way, one state, one vote with a GOP dominated Congress will vote fro Clinton or Trump fro president.
hence, why there are posts like yours discouraging people to vote fro Johnson, in any shape or form. And it is the sitting Congress, not the new Congress which chooses teh president,
Realists; you are not being one.
There is no way, one state, one vote with a GOP dominated Congress will vote fro Clinton or Trump fro president.
hence, why there are posts like yours discouraging people to vote fro Johnson, in any shape or form. And it is the sitting Congress, not the new Congress which chooses teh president,
4
Actually, a positive article about Gary Johnson, in the New York Times.
Johnson/Weld is a solid ticket. This kind of media exposure helps.
Colorado, is mentioned, because it has the second largest Mormon population outside of Utah. New Mexico, the state Johnson governed. Not mentioned, is Wyoming, which could also go Johnson's way. Weld was very popular in Massachusetts, and could influence the outcome there, New Hampshire Vermont and Maine. Johns/Weld may not win these, but will affect the outcomes.
Some could say that Clinton gets an advantage. Not really, because as close as the race is, just tipping a few states away from both candidates makes it it harder for either of them to get to 270.
And, remember Clinton is not home free yet with some really nasty baggage issues. And Trump self-destructing.
It could come down to ex-Trump supporters, and John supporters, voting for Johnson. With a number of independents who would never vote fro Clinton or Trump. remember, Ohio voted for Kasich over Trump, and that was done with GOP supporters and a number of independents. This according to the Ohio AG.
Yes, Johnson could be the spoiler for both parties; which they deserve; by providing the two worse presidential candidates in decades.
Johnson/Weld is a solid ticket. This kind of media exposure helps.
Colorado, is mentioned, because it has the second largest Mormon population outside of Utah. New Mexico, the state Johnson governed. Not mentioned, is Wyoming, which could also go Johnson's way. Weld was very popular in Massachusetts, and could influence the outcome there, New Hampshire Vermont and Maine. Johns/Weld may not win these, but will affect the outcomes.
Some could say that Clinton gets an advantage. Not really, because as close as the race is, just tipping a few states away from both candidates makes it it harder for either of them to get to 270.
And, remember Clinton is not home free yet with some really nasty baggage issues. And Trump self-destructing.
It could come down to ex-Trump supporters, and John supporters, voting for Johnson. With a number of independents who would never vote fro Clinton or Trump. remember, Ohio voted for Kasich over Trump, and that was done with GOP supporters and a number of independents. This according to the Ohio AG.
Yes, Johnson could be the spoiler for both parties; which they deserve; by providing the two worse presidential candidates in decades.
8
To borrow a phrase from writer Anthony polis, see below: "Johnson and Weld are more concerned with fiscal responsibility than Libertarian dogma."
Most of the Johnson/Weld supporters seem to bend over backwards to show that Johnson/Weld aren't really Libertarians, don't really believe Libertarian doctrine, and would, probably/possibly, not govern as Libertarians. If so, why bother?
Much of what writers say Johnson/Weld are and support are directly traceable to the Rockefeller Republicans of the 1950s - early '60s. HRC, in spirit, policy, predilection and inclination is a Rockefeller Republican as was WJC and is President Obama.
Most of the Johnson/Weld supporters seem to bend over backwards to show that Johnson/Weld aren't really Libertarians, don't really believe Libertarian doctrine, and would, probably/possibly, not govern as Libertarians. If so, why bother?
Much of what writers say Johnson/Weld are and support are directly traceable to the Rockefeller Republicans of the 1950s - early '60s. HRC, in spirit, policy, predilection and inclination is a Rockefeller Republican as was WJC and is President Obama.
11
I disagree. It is very difficult to practice pure libertarian dogma in a country that is far from it like the US. So, they need to adjust to what it already exits and with it try to be as libertarian as possible. They won't be able to do much as congress is full of incompetent people who are sold to different groups.
But the libertarian idea of making people responsible for their own acts and reduce involvement of government to its minimun is within their ideals.
But the libertarian idea of making people responsible for their own acts and reduce involvement of government to its minimun is within their ideals.
3
If this lad was anything more than democrat-lite I might see your point.
Libertarianism would work just fine if we each had our own planet. But since we have to share this little vessel with 7.4 billion others, the dogma is just plain silly.
25
You know what's silly - empowering huge governments that dole out favors, goodies, and punishments to millions of people and not expecting them to divide into factions that are constantly at each others' throats in an effort to grab the levers of power.
So yeah, we've seen mass destruction and mass murder at the hands of governments while the free market has improved the living standards of almost all of those 7.4 billion people over the globe.
I think you are the silly one.
So yeah, we've seen mass destruction and mass murder at the hands of governments while the free market has improved the living standards of almost all of those 7.4 billion people over the globe.
I think you are the silly one.
8
$20 trillion in debt, wars, asset forfeiture, gerrymandering, immigration policy, military police state, bureaucracy, excessive excused pollution by both the state and corporations, agricultural hegemony, education depravity, unprecedented waste and favours for favours.
The problem is that people content with the two party system are saddling the rest of us with the debt for their pride.
How's that two party system treating you? Not well.
The problem is that people content with the two party system are saddling the rest of us with the debt for their pride.
How's that two party system treating you? Not well.
4
Libertarianism is no more silly that entrusting our defense to Revolutionary War re-enactors, and our financial system to abacuses. Since that Industrial Revolution that Mr. Jefferson so abhorred, it just doesn't quite suffice.
6
It's not just the lack of appeal of a lesser known third party, the platforms and candidates of these parties leave something to be desired. Look up both parties views on childhood vaccinations, for example (and Stein is a Harvard trained doctor, what gives?) Or contrast the fairly extreme (and diametrically opposed) positions on gun safety. I did appreciate the strip tease at the Libertarian party convention, however. Entertaining. Until and unless a third party does better, the two party structure will have to do and -- I have to say it -- I am TOTALLY with HER!
15
You're with HER even though she is going to raise taxes by the trillions with a T. You're with HER even though the government will grow and become more expensive with no realistic way to pay for it other than growing the debt. You're with HER even though she supports military interventions just a much as Bush and Obama has and wants us to get even more embroiled in fights that aren't ours and that we can't fix. You're with HER even though it has been well established that she has a problem with honesty.
Gun safety? Is that the new euphemism for gun control?
BTW, if one crazy dude at a convention is enough to disqualify a candidate, then I'm afraid there is no one you could vote for.
Gun safety? Is that the new euphemism for gun control?
BTW, if one crazy dude at a convention is enough to disqualify a candidate, then I'm afraid there is no one you could vote for.
4
By very definition, there is always at least one crazy person at every Trump rally...
6
The problem is, most of what you say is a lie.
5
The view that I hear expressed most commonly is that people agree with the fiscal conservative + social liberal philosophy of Libertarians, but don't want to "waste" their vote by supporting someone who can't win.
However, the only way your vote "counts" in an electoral sense is by changing the outcome of the election. If before you go to the polls the vote is tied, then you can and should vote strategically for Ms. Clinton or Mr. Trump, to swing the election in your own favor.
But if the vote in your state is NOT going to be a tie or near-tie prior to counting your personal vote, then your vote has no electoral consequence at all. In that setting, the only way to optimize is to vote your true preferences -- as opposed to voting strategically, for your second-favorite candidate. Your vote only counts by sending the clearest possible signal about the things you do and do not want the government to do AFTER the election.
Strategic voting is only strategic for the major parties that receive undeserved votes. Party hacks, lifetime politicians, petty despots.
However, the only way your vote "counts" in an electoral sense is by changing the outcome of the election. If before you go to the polls the vote is tied, then you can and should vote strategically for Ms. Clinton or Mr. Trump, to swing the election in your own favor.
But if the vote in your state is NOT going to be a tie or near-tie prior to counting your personal vote, then your vote has no electoral consequence at all. In that setting, the only way to optimize is to vote your true preferences -- as opposed to voting strategically, for your second-favorite candidate. Your vote only counts by sending the clearest possible signal about the things you do and do not want the government to do AFTER the election.
Strategic voting is only strategic for the major parties that receive undeserved votes. Party hacks, lifetime politicians, petty despots.
8
The author fails to disclose that polling is incredibly dubious and uneven. Most mainstream polls are conducted via landline phone due to the do-not-call list of cell phones, which cancels out a huge percentage of the population's voice. The questions pollsters ask are set up for third-party failure as well, only recognizing them as "other"—not by name—if at all, and usually as an afterthought. These fraudulent polls then get distributed to the media and influence the group thought of voters: "If nobody else is considering a third party, why should I?" Don't be fooled by the polls. It's a form of brain washing. Pay attention to the candidates and do your homework.
10
First, the Libertarian convention was a joke, no one who actually watched that gathering would consider Libertarians a serious political party worthy of their vote.
In any event, Real Clear Politics has Johnson's polling average at 7.3 percent, not the 10 percent stated in this article, which would require Johnson to more double his support in order to qualify for the presidential debates. The odds of that happening are remarkably long especially given third-party candidates history of fading down the stretch. But if we think about how this might happen, it is far more likely to be the result of Republicans finally defecting from Trump, rather than Johnson's ability to woo marginal Clinton voters. As such, I don't see the Johnson-Stein candidacies having a determinative impact, even in this election cycle.
In any event, Real Clear Politics has Johnson's polling average at 7.3 percent, not the 10 percent stated in this article, which would require Johnson to more double his support in order to qualify for the presidential debates. The odds of that happening are remarkably long especially given third-party candidates history of fading down the stretch. But if we think about how this might happen, it is far more likely to be the result of Republicans finally defecting from Trump, rather than Johnson's ability to woo marginal Clinton voters. As such, I don't see the Johnson-Stein candidacies having a determinative impact, even in this election cycle.
10
Frankly, the Libertarian convention has very little to do with Gary Johnson as a Presidential candidate. Watch his two Town Halls on CNN (they're online) with his running mate, Bill Weld, and you'll see he is a serious candidate. Furthermore, as a businessman and two-term governor, re-elected by a wide margin as a Republican in a Democratic majority state (as was Bill Weld in Massachusetts), I think both Johnson and Weld are better qualified for the office of President than Hillary (let's not even mention Trump, who isn't qualified to enter the White House except as a tourist.) Will they affect the election? If the supposedly non-partisan Debate Commission, which is run by the Democrats and Republicans and is not in any way non-partisan, actually lets Gary Johnson debate, I think you might be surprised. While Trump and Clinton call each other names, having an adult on the stage talking about the issues could well have a bigger persuasive effect than you might imagine. Furthermore, as someone liberal socially and conservative fiscally, Johnson-Weld are in tune with a large number of Americans who don't want HIllary's big government or Trump's, well, who knows what Trump wants?
12
. . . and Johnson's total failure to take hundreds of millions from corporations, bankers, and billionaires.
. . . and the fact the ClinTrump have over $2.5 billion in free media so far.
What kind of Don Quixote would chase after THAT mammoth windmill?
Keep Calm and Gary On!
. . . and the fact the ClinTrump have over $2.5 billion in free media so far.
What kind of Don Quixote would chase after THAT mammoth windmill?
Keep Calm and Gary On!
4
Where to begin? So don't look at the party behind the man? That's nonsense. Johnson-Weld are in tune with a large number of Americans, but have minuscule support? The country wants socially liberal, but fiscally conservative? Because Republicans have shown that their conservative tax and spending philosophy produces results like those in Kansas and Louisiana, as opposed to liberal places like California? And if you don't believe that Hillary Clinton will come prepared to debate, then you simply have never listened to Clinton discuss policy issues.
12
he's actually going to win by winning in Utah and a couple of other western states. This will throw the election into the house of reps. The senate will choose the VP. Johnson/Kaine will be the next administration.
I think a wasted vote is going against your own principals like Ryan and McCain supporting Trump. I have not pledged my allegiance to any political party.
I will hold true to my principals and not compromise my character. I am voting for Jill Stein rather than waste a vote and compromise my character.
I will hold true to my principals and not compromise my character. I am voting for Jill Stein rather than waste a vote and compromise my character.
10
The libertarians have no jobs plan and have no infrastructure plan
So thanks but I will stick with her
So thanks but I will stick with her
16
Gary Johnson on his claim that he did not create a single job as governor:
“My priority was to get government out of the way, keep it out of the way, and allow hard-working New Mexicans, entrepreneurs and businesses to fulfill their potential,” he said. “That’s how government can encourage job growth, and that’s what government needs to do today.”
“My priority was to get government out of the way, keep it out of the way, and allow hard-working New Mexicans, entrepreneurs and businesses to fulfill their potential,” he said. “That’s how government can encourage job growth, and that’s what government needs to do today.”
2
Johnson/Weld do have a "jobs plan". It is get the government out of the way, end senseless, feather-bedding government job creation, decrease taxes, and let people work. Regulations now suppress job creation and development. $20 Trillion in debt. The only jobs Bush/Obama have created for the poor are "grab a gun and head out to the Middle East". Enough already.
4
Libertarians have a jobs plan, but it does not involve the nanny state. Looking to the state for jobs is not a plan. Furthermore the debt involved is raising the roof ($20Trill) on all of us and on future generations and shows a deplorable lack of foresight and bravery.
Let's talk about actual track records, these two gov's had excellent job growth in their states without using taxpayer dollars to make it happen.
Let's talk about actual track records, these two gov's had excellent job growth in their states without using taxpayer dollars to make it happen.
6
The only reason to continue to ignore the partisan structure at the root of the Presidential Debate Commission, is to ignore the vice grip on power held by the two party system. This is sustained by the free press' absolute ignorance of the importance of this and other constrictions on our democracy.
Does putting the title, 'Nonpartisan' automatically on the Presidential Debate Commission's charter convince you of said title? Do we need another wikileak or Ed Snowden type release to show you how insanely naive that is?
Does putting the title, 'Nonpartisan' automatically on the Presidential Debate Commission's charter convince you of said title? Do we need another wikileak or Ed Snowden type release to show you how insanely naive that is?
10
While Jill Stein is in the low single digits, 3%, she has been there for a long time. She seems to be a steady core of supporters and if they vote for her and if Johnson gets his 6-8% it would be interesting to see how that ~10% of voters would affect the Electoral College.
I leave it to Mr. Katz to do the math.
I leave it to Mr. Katz to do the math.
8
It's a little disappointing seeing the failed history of third party candidates, especially Ross Perot, who at one time had over 30% in the polls. Though I do find some hope in that media has been turned upside down. In those days, the television, papers, and magazines controlled exposure. Today, someone or something can go viral with virtually no advertising cost. At the moment I'm writing this, "Libertarian Party, Gary Johnson" is 19th in Google Trends. I suspect that increased interest will snowball and result in the 15% they need to make the debates.
And BTW, William Weld is phenomenal. Very impressive last night. If they switched the ticket, I think they would win as Weld is clearly a superior candidate to both Trump and Clinton.
And BTW, William Weld is phenomenal. Very impressive last night. If they switched the ticket, I think they would win as Weld is clearly a superior candidate to both Trump and Clinton.
11
I felt exactly the same way watching the CNN discussion last night. I thought Weld was a statesman and I haven't felt that way about anyone in decades. It would be grand if they were included in Pres and Veep debates.
5
The Commission on Presidential Debates is far from impartial. It is set up and run by both the Democratic and Republican parties. It is a duopoly and it's purpose is to exclude any 3rd party. Why do you think it is no longer run by the League of Womens Voters?? The old rules were if you were on the ballot in 50 states you were in the debates. Now you have to poll 15% when your name is not even mentioned as a option!!! The fix is in. Two choices. Both bad. Let Johnson and Stein in the debates!!
31
If Mcdonalds and Burger King designed the regulations for restaurants, people would be livid and competition would suffer.
7
I've said this before, and I'll say it again: if you just can't vote for Clinton but think Trump would be worse, then vote for Gary Johnson so that Trump won't win. He'll get a large share of votes from conservatives who can't stomach either Clinton or Trump, and at least some votes from those who are concerned about civil liberties and overseas military adventurism.
20
The polls so far show Johnson taking slightly more support from Clinton than Trump.
8
Geez, how often does it need to be said that libertarians are NOT "military isolation[ists]" as this article says they are?
Libertarians want the strongest military in the world, and want maximum engagement with the world. Real engagement involves diplomacy, trade, and movements of peoples.
Libertarians are non-interventionists. That is, the military should be used to defend this nation, but not to topple other governments and not to become welfare aid agencies in other countries.
The real isolationists are the people that want to intervene everywhere and use the military to impose American hegemony around the world. At least since 1953, when the UK and US toppled a democratically elected president in Iran and installed the Shah, our policies have made the situation in the middle east worse, not better.
Libertarians want the strongest military in the world, and want maximum engagement with the world. Real engagement involves diplomacy, trade, and movements of peoples.
Libertarians are non-interventionists. That is, the military should be used to defend this nation, but not to topple other governments and not to become welfare aid agencies in other countries.
The real isolationists are the people that want to intervene everywhere and use the military to impose American hegemony around the world. At least since 1953, when the UK and US toppled a democratically elected president in Iran and installed the Shah, our policies have made the situation in the middle east worse, not better.
25
Never forget that libertarians are just republicans that are too embarrassed to admit that they're republicans.
Sorry to say it, but anyone who thinks Gary Johnson would be in any substantive way truly different than a typical republican, then think again.
Just like if we had a democrat for president, Gary would have little to no chance with our current Congress of passing anything that he might be more seemingly liberal on (like marijuana legalization, for example).
At the same time, just like every single real republican, Gary believes in deregulation and tax breaks, which we all know how easily those two non-ideas are always able to pass Congress.
Moreover, states' rights would basically become the law of the land, as I'm sure Gary would pull back severely on the powers of the federal government, leaving all those fine red states to revert back to their charming freedumb-lovin hate-filled ways, without that buffer the federal government sometimes needs to provide.
Gary might not have that little R next to his name, but I'd bet anyone any sum of money that if he were president, the republicans would have no problems passing their agenda, while the democrats would struggle mightily.
Sorry to say it, but anyone who thinks Gary Johnson would be in any substantive way truly different than a typical republican, then think again.
Just like if we had a democrat for president, Gary would have little to no chance with our current Congress of passing anything that he might be more seemingly liberal on (like marijuana legalization, for example).
At the same time, just like every single real republican, Gary believes in deregulation and tax breaks, which we all know how easily those two non-ideas are always able to pass Congress.
Moreover, states' rights would basically become the law of the land, as I'm sure Gary would pull back severely on the powers of the federal government, leaving all those fine red states to revert back to their charming freedumb-lovin hate-filled ways, without that buffer the federal government sometimes needs to provide.
Gary might not have that little R next to his name, but I'd bet anyone any sum of money that if he were president, the republicans would have no problems passing their agenda, while the democrats would struggle mightily.
33
What part of being opposed to foreign intervention is difficult for you to grasp? What part of civil liberties - including privacy and pro-choice - are you having difficulty in separating from the Republican position? What part of immigration reform? Prison reform? Drug policy reform?
16
Gary Johnson supports tax cuts in a general way, but he does not support "tax breaks", at least in the way I think you mean. The concept of tax "breaks" are part of crony-capitalism, where large and connected entities attempt to use the power of government to their advantage.
Johnson and Weld are vigorously opposed to crony capitalism and want to reduce the power of the federal government to hand out favors.
"States rights" is already the law of the land and has been since the beginning. The federal government only has those powers delegated to it by the Constitution. In addition to that, the incorporation doctrine has applied most of the Bill of Rights against the states, which gives the federal government the power to prevent the states from infringing those rights. Other than that, the Federal government cannot compel any state to do any particular thing. The design still is to have "laboratories of democracy".
Johnson and Weld are vigorously opposed to crony capitalism and want to reduce the power of the federal government to hand out favors.
"States rights" is already the law of the land and has been since the beginning. The federal government only has those powers delegated to it by the Constitution. In addition to that, the incorporation doctrine has applied most of the Bill of Rights against the states, which gives the federal government the power to prevent the states from infringing those rights. Other than that, the Federal government cannot compel any state to do any particular thing. The design still is to have "laboratories of democracy".
9
"Never forget that libertarians are just republicans that are too embarrassed to admit that they're republicans."
Libertarians are a lot different from Republicans. They differ greatly on social policies (gay marriage, abortion, drugs) and on foreign policy (interventionism vs interventionism). You should really do some research on what Libertarians stand for, specifically Gary Johnson and Bill Weld. I was a Clinton and Sanders supporter until I discovered Johnson in June. I have both Democrat and Republican friends that are now supporting him, too. He has appeal to both sides, which America desperately needs right now.
Libertarians are a lot different from Republicans. They differ greatly on social policies (gay marriage, abortion, drugs) and on foreign policy (interventionism vs interventionism). You should really do some research on what Libertarians stand for, specifically Gary Johnson and Bill Weld. I was a Clinton and Sanders supporter until I discovered Johnson in June. I have both Democrat and Republican friends that are now supporting him, too. He has appeal to both sides, which America desperately needs right now.
7
3rd party candicates this year - whether Libertarian or Green - could end up being decisive. Recall Nader impacting the Gore vote and Perot impacting Bush 41
7
What? There's a candidate who isn't anticapitalist or promoting class warfare, isn't a religious crusader, isn't a mercantilist or a war hawk, who doesn't want to deport 11 million people, and doesn't want to tax everything to the point of nonfunctioning in order to waste money on authoritarian regulations and well intentioned programs that don't help? Johnson 2016!
41
You've told us what Johnson is against. What exactly is he for, and how is he going to fix the problems? At least Bernie Sanders identified the problems.
10
In terms of foreign policy, he is for for diplomacy and strengthening our domestic defense in times of attacks and reducing our dangerous and costly foreign interventions.
He's for equal opportunity, both in business and with social issues. He has a strong understanding of the need for religious liberty, but unlike Mike Pence is and has been a support for LGBTQ rights and would push for federal laws protecting those people that are hurt by laws like what was passed in Indiana.
He is interested in allowing charter schools to compete more directly with public schools. He pushed for vouchers while governor of NM to allow for *all* families to have access to private/charter education.
You should maybe listen to the Town Hall he had last night. He and Bill Weld did a great job articulating their views.
He's for equal opportunity, both in business and with social issues. He has a strong understanding of the need for religious liberty, but unlike Mike Pence is and has been a support for LGBTQ rights and would push for federal laws protecting those people that are hurt by laws like what was passed in Indiana.
He is interested in allowing charter schools to compete more directly with public schools. He pushed for vouchers while governor of NM to allow for *all* families to have access to private/charter education.
You should maybe listen to the Town Hall he had last night. He and Bill Weld did a great job articulating their views.
3
Vanessa, on immigration, Johnson has said that he wants to create a quick and efficient way for immigrants to get work visas. His idea is to do a quick background check and then give them a temporary visa and a social security number so that all taxes can be paid.
Also, being "against" things is often the solution in and of itself. Drug prohibition has caused a huge amount of violence and incarceration. The solution is to end drug prohibition.
Also, being "against" things is often the solution in and of itself. Drug prohibition has caused a huge amount of violence and incarceration. The solution is to end drug prohibition.
6
How many votes in the electoral college are needed by Johnson and Stien to throw the election into the house of Rep.? With many states switching from winner take all to system of allocating based on total vote. The time has come for the NYT to publish an article explaining this constitutional requirment.
13
That depends on too many factors to be answerable. If no candidate receives a majority of the votes in the electoral college, it goes to the House. So, if the vote is very close (by state, not necessarily by popular vote) as few as the three votes allocated to the smallest states and the District of Columbia could mean that no candidate gets 270. On the other hand, if there is a large majority for one candidate, splitting the remainder in half would have no effect.
5
Only two states do not give all of their electoral votes to the candidate that has at least a plurality of the popular vote; Maine and Nebraska. In those states the winner in each congressional district gets one vote. The remaining two electoral votes go to the candidate who gets the most popular votes statewide.
The electoral process needs reform, but so far only two states do other then award all of the states electoral votes to the candidate that receives the most popular votes, no matter the margin of victory.
The electoral process needs reform, but so far only two states do other then award all of the states electoral votes to the candidate that receives the most popular votes, no matter the margin of victory.
6
What states are doing this, pray tell?. Right now only Maine and Nebraska award EVs proportionally. And it's not going to change any time soon, specifically not this year. It's still winner take all.
8
The point of a central government is to do big things. To level the playing field for all. While it's been failing to do that since Reagan's administration, that is what it's there for. Self serving people like Gary Johnson wants his because now he's got it. If it wasn't for the US government and the state governments, I'm sure that little weasel would be road kill. No one stands on their own. That image of the strong guy in the old west still had a gun and bullets manufactured by someone else. Get over it people!
34
Libertarian polices are the polar opposite of Sanders and the democratic platform that he helped to write. Libertarians believe that people are essentially on their own and that the government function at the barest level. Libertarians do not believe in universal health care, Medicare, social security or any safety net. They do not believe in funding public schools or even taking care of most public infrastructure like roads. Their tax plan is regressive. It unfairly taxes working people more since it is a consumption tax plan. They don't believe in having a minimum wage. I urge folks to look at the Libertarian policies not just that the candidates seem honest and likable.
79
You are trotting out some of the most extreme Libertarian opinions, and you have presented them in a biased manner. I urge people not to judge Libertarian principles or candidates by the information you have provided.
20
Jason - You seem to have borrowed your strategy from the Republicans. You've told us what's wrong with something, but you have not offered any kind of alternative to counter what you say is false. What RJS states may or may not be the extreme, but based on the Libertarians I know, it is true.
8
The only candidate who will end the wars now is Johnson. We have no choice but to vote Libertarian!! Or the wars go on for 8 more years and more poor kid in our military are killed/injured. The Bush/ Obama wars have to end.
10
Gary Johnson and Bill Weld were very impressive last night on CNN. I like their policies and philosophical positions and I found them to be very level headed guys. I hope they make it into the debates because I think they'd have a great chance of winning if people could just hear what they have to say. People complain that we only have two poor choices -- but that just isn't the case!
45
The Johnson/Weld ticket deserves media attention. They have cinched my vote and I think if the media were to help introduce this sane, intelligent, and seemingly honest and "dirt-free" duo to the American public they would secure many more votes.
43
Great article. I believe Gov. Johnson's policy is not military isolationism, its non-interventionist.
Think coming to the defense of an ally versus staying out of someones civil war, or trying to force regime changes. Meddling where we are not wanted has made the world less safe.
Think coming to the defense of an ally versus staying out of someones civil war, or trying to force regime changes. Meddling where we are not wanted has made the world less safe.
40
Most of us baby boomers thought our country learned that after the Vietnam debacle. However, come along George W. "draft dodger" Bush, and here we go again.
14
"Where we are not wanted" is crucial. Libyan rebels did ask for NATO assistance after the regime bombed Misrata. Syrian rebels asked for aid as Assad dropped barrel bombs in civilian areas. Colonial American rebels asked for, and received, French aid (secretly starting in 1775, with an open alliance in 1778). I hope you feel it's a good thing the French crossed the Atlantic 240 years ago.
7
Sabin: what about Clinton? She voted for the Iraq War and led the charge in Libya and Syria. She has the support neocons, too. She is widely perceived as a hawk, and her record backs it up.
2
I think to say that the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) is "nonpartisan" fails to provide readers with an accurate description of the organization. While the CPD is a 501c3 non-profit corporation, which should be nonpartisan as to hold a tax-exempt status, it is run by party leaders from both the GOP and DNC. With regard to other political parties, the CPD does not act as a nonpartisan organization and has repeatedly worked to exclude other political parties from participating in the presidential debates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates
My opinion of a nonpartisan organization would imply equal treatment of all parties, which would be demonstrated by inclusion of any political party in the presidential debates that has met basic requirements like state ballot access. If it is numerically possible for a candidate to be able to win the presidency, that candidate should be included in the debates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates
My opinion of a nonpartisan organization would imply equal treatment of all parties, which would be demonstrated by inclusion of any political party in the presidential debates that has met basic requirements like state ballot access. If it is numerically possible for a candidate to be able to win the presidency, that candidate should be included in the debates.
31
"All the News That's Fit to Print: the only bias is what page it goes on"
I am not a Libertarian, but this year I will vote Libertarian. Not a protest, but so I can live with myself.
However, my vote won't count, unless the news media puts focus on this option. Fifteen articles suggesting Don Trump does not have the temperament to be president and ten articles suggesting Hillary lacks integrity.
I had to do a search on Libertarian in NYT to find this article as it was buried below twenty articles on the political web page.
The NYT
I am not a Libertarian, but this year I will vote Libertarian. Not a protest, but so I can live with myself.
However, my vote won't count, unless the news media puts focus on this option. Fifteen articles suggesting Don Trump does not have the temperament to be president and ten articles suggesting Hillary lacks integrity.
I had to do a search on Libertarian in NYT to find this article as it was buried below twenty articles on the political web page.
The NYT
52
@SSK—Do you know what the Libertarian party platform is? What their policy positions are? It's dangerous to vote for somebody as a protest vote unless you are actually in agreement with how they would govern.
7
As if there was a Trump position platform .... That a voter could review.
Seriously?
Seriously?
12
...and unlike Hillary and Don, the two Libertarian candidates have actually governed (as opposed to legislate or ruled).
5
Trump's crazy behavior + Hillary's next email dump= 15%.
15
Nader was pretty irrelevant nationally but cost Gore Florida and now we know what a 'chad' is and who 'dubya' is.
Which way will the chads fall, we won't know until election day and no matter what happens, it will be a sad day.